Consistency is paramount.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The least stinging element of the state Elections Division's review of City Recorder Kate Fieland's handling of filing documents for Eugene City Council races was the $100 fine. Long after she pays up, Fieland's pride will bear the scars of the lash wielded by the division's compliance specialist, who dismantled every justification given for the recorder's actions. Fieland used her discretion in an area where state law gives her none.

City Council candidates can get their name on the ballot either by collecting petition signatures, or by paying a fee. Most choose the petition route. Candidates are supposed to file with the recorder's office, and then gather supporters' signatures. In four cases, Fieland allowed candidates to collect signatures before filing. Jim Hale, a council candidate in Ward 5, noted the inconsistencies and, joined by three other council candidates, complained to the secretary of state's office.

In the end, all the candidates' names appeared on the ballot and the election was conducted as though nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. The possibility of legal action still exists, but both the secretary of state's office and a Lane County Circuit judge refused to disqualify any candidates for filing irregularities. Yet Fieland's experience should impress upon anyone involved in elections the importance of sticking strictly to the rules.

The compliance specialist mercilessly dissected Fieland's response to the complaints and the city attorney's defense of her actions. The central defense - that city rules supersede state law in this instance - was brushed aside: "We find the city's belated contention that the city code does not require prior submission of the appropriate forms to be completely untenable, given the city's prior written instructions and the fact that most candidates for the 2002 primary election were required to follow the city instructions."

Not only did Fieland lack legal authority to use her discretion, she used it in an inconsistent manner: "Even your decision to 'waive' the requirements was not done consistently, so candidates gathering signatures at the same time were working under different rules, depending on whether you chose to inform the particular candidate of your decision."

There's more: "What happened in Eugene during this candidate filing period is troubling. We believe the evidence shows that you did not take care to give accurate advice, and then you took it upon yourself to give some, but not all, candidates special dispensation to avoid the ordinary filing requirements. We do not censure the candidates; we find it was your responsibility to assist all candidates to completely follow the city's instructions to candidates."

After all that, one expects to hear prison doors sliding shut - but a $100 fine is the maximum penalty allowed. It was Fieland's first offense, and in such cases multiple violations are treated as one. "Although we wish to state that we deem the egregious nature of the multiple violations merits a more severe penalty," the compliance specialist wrote, "this office is constrained in the amount of civil penalty we may assess... ."

Hale is not satisfied, believing that the candidates should be held at least partly accountable for the filing foulup. Two of those involved were incumbents, who might be expected to be acquainted with elections procedures. Yet elections officials are the ones who are directly responsible for seeing that the rules are followed. Fieland's experience is a warning: Even if they're working with candidates who ought to know the ropes, elections officials are the ones who have their necks in the noose.

One more crack of the compliance specialist's whip: "One of the cardinal tenets of election law is that the laws must be applied uniformly and consistently." In Eugene, Fieland is the one charged with seeing that that occurs. One thing is certain: She won't make the same mistake again.